3 ms·
For me personally apt is just annoyingly slow, but dnf is much worse. I've seen how fast APK is and I feel, that my distro of choice (Void) has a package manage
by hawski 4y ago
For me personally apt is just annoyingly slow, but dnf is much worse. I've seen how fast APK is and I feel, that my distro of choice (Void) has a package manager (XBPS) that is maybe slightly slower than it.
I sometimes wonder if it is like that, because XBPS and APK were designed and built by C hackers while apt where done by system administrators maybe. With dnf/rpm I attribute it to this quirkiness I often feel diving into some of Red Hat's tech. Not trying to offend, just wondering and I acknowledge that I am biased.
- invalidator 4y ago> apt is just annoyingly slow A lot of that is due to aggressive use of fsync. apt tries hard to be robust against power failures when changing the system. When using it for something ephemeral (say, part of a CI workflow) you can disable fsync and let it rip. It's still not as fast as apk but it's several times faster than normal. apt-get -yq install eatmydata eatmydata apt-get -yq install (all the other things)
- gorgoiler 4y agoWow. You weren’t kidding. I tried apt install ffmpeg in a debian:sid docker container on two different docker hosts: one with slow IO (a cheap VPS with slow, contentious storage); and one with much faster, less over subscribed IO. Fast IO: 27s -> 26s with eatmydata. Basically the same. Slow IO: 280s -> 140s with eatmydata. Literally twice as fast.